Blog Against Theocracy: The Problem With End Timers

All this weekend, a plethora of secularist bloggers are blogging against theocracy. To start off my humble contribution, I wanted to repost a little missive I wrote last year to hold you over while I get some new stuff ready:

First, let me tell you who End Timers are. They are the bulk of the evangelical right who believe that the book of Revelations accurately predicts the second coming of Jesus. When this happens there will be plagues, natural disasters, genocide, war, etc. Luckily for Christians, they think they’ll be “ruptured” into heaven to dance and party with Jesus until the end of time. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the Antichrist will call all the nonbelievers to his side to destroy the remaining Christians (poor bastards, I guess they didn’t believe enough in the first place). Luckily, Jesus will come back in seven years as a superhero and smite the forces of the Antichrist, judge all of humanity, and then reign on Earth for the next thousand years. And it’s all going to start in the next fifty years. Don’t believe me? Read the Left Behind series by Tim Lahay. This money grubber lays it out exactly how fundamental Christians think it will happen.

The problem with prophecy is that it can become self-fulfilling. Evangelicals today want to do everything they can to hasten Jesus’ return. They support war in the Middle East, refuse to allow Israel to give up land to the Palestinians, and don’t care about global warming. Why? Because these are the events that will hasten Jesus’ second coming. That’s all well and good…unless it’s not what Revelations means at all.

The idea of the Rapture first appeared in the 1800s. It’s not an ancient belief at all. Furthermore, the author of Revelations was writing for a contemporary audience. The Christians of the time rightly feared the Romans and believed that Jesus was going to come back and destroy the Roman Empire in the same generation. But here Christians are 2000 years later, still waiting for Jesus to save them.

Because of the control the RR (Religious Right) has on our government (not to mention our born again President) through the Republican Party, this belief in the End Time permeates through government policy. Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty to stop global warming, and believes that he is doing God’s work in Iraq. It also widens the division between religions until there is no chance for reconciliation. It’s all ludicrous. When people stop caring about this world, what happens to this one? What do we leave our children? This belief in prophecy must stop if we want to survive as a species and give our descendents a decent place to live.

Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Administration

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Between school work and my laziness, I just haven't had the desire lately. However, there was an interesting development yesterday.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court Ruled yesterday on Massachusetts v. EPA deciding 5-4 against the EPA. The case decided whether or not the EPA has an obligation to enforce the Clean Air Act and, if they choose not to, states can enforce it instead.

The Bush Administration had claimed that the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. However, the states and environmental groups filing suit pursauded enough of the court that carbon dioxide emissions pose a serious threat to their security and that the EPA must follow its own regulations.

Even better, the majority opinion said that if the EPA doesn't want to regulate specific emissions, it must provide valid, scientific proof that the emissions are not harmful rather than a set of unrelated objections. Since the scientific community pretty much agrees on the reality of global warming, that makes it extremely difficult for the EPA to refuse to act.

Perhaps now this ruling will force the EPA to finally do its job regardless of any kicking and screaming coming from the White House.

Read more at the New York Times.

The part of thise ruling is the fact that the court doesn't seem to have become crazy conservative with Bush's appointees. Of course, they were both amongst the dissenters along with Scalia and Thomas, but that's to be expected. Perhaps the Court is less liberal, but I can live with a moderate one as long as it doesn't destroy all the progessive gains that have been made over the past half century. It gives me hope that they'll rule properly in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation over whether or not taxpayers can file suit against the unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiatives. I suppose only time will tell.

The Attorney Purge Controversy Gets Interesting

After watching President Bush's press conference earlier today, I couldn't help but feel like we're seeing the beginning of a constitutional showdown here between Congress and the Bush Administration.

Now, the firings of the US attorneys are somewhat shady by themselves. All of them had satisfactory job reviews and no reason for being fired, unlike all but two of the ten attorneys asked to retire in the previous 25 years. Clearly, there's an overt political reason here since they didn't pursue Republican goals enough. But that's not surprising or the real problem since US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and he can fire them at any time.

The real problem is that Bush is refusing to allow members of his staff to testify before Congress under oath. The "reasonable offer" Bush kept referring to in the recent press conference is anything but. He will allow a bipartisan panel from Congress to interview Rove and Miers as long as it is not under oath, behind closed doors, and there will be no transcript of the meeting. Clearly, he has something to hide because this offer basically says, "My staff should be allowed to lie to protect the administration." What's the matter Bush? Afriad Rove will have to disclose too much about the corrupt workings of your administration?

The Administration has tried to defend itself by saying that there is no precedent for White House staffers testifying before Congress. There's only one problem: that's not true at all. 31 of Clinton's advisors testified before Congress on 47 different occasions. Hmm. Slight bit of misinformation (read: lie) there.

Bush also said that he, as the head of a separate branch of government, does not have to send his staffers before Congress because they have to be able to say what they want without fear of being held accountable for what they say. That way, Bush says, he can get honest advice to be more effective. I say bullshit. Why should Bush's staffers not be accountable for what they say unless you want to cover something up? Claiming this kind of executive privilege stinks of Nixon to me, and we know how that turned out.

Next, Bush accused Democrats of fishing for political points. While I don't doubt that whatsoever, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Of all those times Clinton's advisors testified before the Republican-controlled Congress, does Bush seriously think it was never for the Republicans to score political points? Saying politicians are doing something for political reasons..well, no shit Sherlock.

The next step Congress can take is to issue subpoenas. If Rove and Miers refuse to appear, as Bush promised they will, then Congress can vote to find them in contempt of Congress, which means it will go to the courts. In short, this could get interesting very fast.

It's obvious that Bush is trying to hide something. If his administration is innocent of wrongdoing, then he should have no reason to fear his advisors testifying under oath. I really hope this is where Bush finally learns that the game is up. He needs to realize that he is not actually the Emperor of America, but just one part of a three branch government that serves the will of the people. Now, I just hope the Democrats see this through to the end and don't chicken out.

Case to Watch: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation

This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments for Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The purpose of this case is to challenge the Bush administration's appropriation of funds raised from taxpayers to religious groups in such projects as the "Faith-Based Initiatives". The Bush adminisration's side will argue that they used general operating funds for these initiatives and that taxpayers cannot challenge such action.

I have one word for the administration's stand on this: bullshit. The day US citizens can't challenge the government's use of their taxes is the day the government no longer belongs to the people. Basically, the administration is saying the the law does not apply to its actions since only it knows the people's best interests. It's downright scary.

Of course, this has been happening for some time, but the Faith-Based Initiatives are one of the most flagrant manifestations of this lawlessness. Even though the money given to religious groups is said to be for charitable purposes, there's no oversight whatsoever. Religious groups can do whatever they want with the money. It is in direct violation of the establishment clause of the Constiution, and should not be allowed to stand.

Unfortunately, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation will not challenge the Faith-Based Initiatives directly. Instead, it will determine whether or not taxpayers can challenge such governmental action. The fact that this is in question should be enough to concern people by itself. At any rate, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Constitution, then we should finally see some direct challenges to the administration's poorly veiled attempt to bring us closer to a theocracy.

Read more at Americans United

Bush Knows Nothing About History

MSNBC had an article today that caught my eye titled "Bush Compares War on Terror to US Revolution." My first thought was, "How do you figure?" Then there was this mind-numbingly stupid quote from Bush:

“And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.”

I about pulled my hair out at this point. Washington was a strict isolationist. And I mean strict. He felt that America should have nothing to do with the rest of the world, much less try and spread democracy throughout it. No, he wanted freedom for his own nation, and the rest of the world could deal with their own problems. Besides, if you want to draw any parallels between the Revolution and Iraq, then we'd look more like the British. Unfortunate as it may be, we're the ones trying to impose an unpopular government one the people. No, Washington would punch Bush in the face if he were here to see what Bush had done with this country.

Either Bush slept through his US history classes (probable) or he's trying to put a good spin on a sinking ship (almost certain). His presidency will undoubtedly be seen as one of the worst in history, and this must be his way of trying to make himeself look better than he actually is. He draws completely false parallels to truly great men in history to try and piggy-back off their success. The only problem is that you can't use mere rhetoric to make something better. You actually have to make a change and take action. Mr. Bush, has proven incapable of changing his course and wonders why everyone is pissed. If it wasn't so harmful to the country, it would almost be sad.

More on Bush Administation's Supression of Science

The Boston Globe's online newpaper has an article concerning recent statements from US Representative Peter Welch, D-Vermont:

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch says it was a "stunning personal experience" to hear federal scientists say they had been stymied from talking about climate change.

"There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," Welch said.

I'm surprised it took Rep. Welch this long to figure it out. Regardless, the entire charade by the White House is sickening. What's worse is how the article ends:

The White House maintains it was trying to bring balance to reports on global warming.

What is there to balance? The vast majority of the scientific community agrees with the evidence. Once again, the problem comes down to ignorance of science. This quote from Paul Ehrlich says it best:

Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong.

Scientists Reveal Bush Administration's Pressure Against Global Warming

Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, we're finally starting to see the full extent of the Bush Administration's abuse of science. MSNBC has a good article on the subject. Here's a short excerpt:

The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.

The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

We all knew it was happening, but now that the political climate in Washington has changed (no pun intended...okay, maybe it was), we're finally starting to see something done about it. We've already seen the President acknowledge climate change and the need to do something about it in the SOTU. Only time will tell if he backs up his promises. Somehow, I doubt he'll do anything about it.

Some Thoughts on the SOTU

So, I watched the State of the Union address last night. I must say I'm not impressed except for one key part: President Bush said the words "climate change." I was a bit taken aback by this apparent about-face considering the denials and the distortions of science Bush's administration has utilized concerning Global Warming. However, he made the same promise he's made in previous years about alternative fuels and has yet to do anything about it. I seriously doubt he is truly sincere about stopping climate change and it was just a way for him to appease the new Democratic Majority.

Of course, he's still not listening to anybody on Iraq. No surprise there. I loved how quiet the chamber became when Bush spoke about it.

Finally, he didn't say anything about the "family values" issues. I'm not really surprised since 2006 showed that most Americans don't care about those issues. He's just avoiding the issue to save face politically. However, Bush's failure to mention anything on the "family" agenda certainly pissed off conservative Christians. Check out this video from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council where he protests the President's lack of commitment to "family values." Sorry Tony, but most Americans don't want your "values."

I am happy to hear the President mention climate change, but, given his track record, I doubt anything will come of it or any of his other promises. I 've got to keep telling myself: Just two more years and hopefully this nightmare will be over.

On a more positive note, I enjoyed watching Senator Jim Webb give the Democratic response. It was one of the best deliveries in years and did a good job outlining the Democrats' goals. Plus, I like the way he stuck it to Bush on his lack of military service. Good job Senator Webb!

More Lies from the White House

The Center for American Progress has a revealing analysis of "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," a document recently published by the White House. The CAP points out the wild distortions of science throughout the document, particualrly concerning the usefulness of adult stem cells and amneotic stem cells (here's the scientist who discovered amneotic stem cells saying they are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells).

Despite the fact it's theology (and, therefore, unconstitutional) to believe that a sphere of 100 undifferentiated cells is a human being, the sheer audacity of the science distortions are amazing. Even with the general consensus within science against these claims, the White House has no problem lying to satisfy its supporters. This sort of lying to the American public is downright criminal. I can't wait for January 2009 when we finally get a new administration. Hopefully they'll show a degree of decency, unlike the current one.

War With Iran = Rapture?

Sarah Posner at AlterNet has a great, but frightening, article on President Bush's recent suggestion of war with Iran. From all appearances, it seems as though fundamentalist Christians have started to convince Bush that God requires war with Iran. Just look at his most recent speech when he said, "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time." Sorry, but meer ideology does not justify war with Iran. There needs to me more legitimate reasons than that.

Of course, Bush is a fundamentalist himself, but as a government official he must keep his religious beliefs separate. He can think what he wants out of office, but while in it, he owes it to the American people to keep theology out of his decisions. In my opinion, the unprecedented access that Bush gives to fundamentalist Christians has got to stop. They have taken his mind outside of the realm of reality (at least more than it already was) and are convincing him to use the nation's power to live out a fantasy. Posner correctly states: "That the president's top national security advisor on Middle East policy met with the popular author of a best-selling book that claims that God requires a war with Iran demonstrates just how intensely politics trumps policy (and human lives) for this unhinged administration."

There is no reason for the Bush administration to listen to these End Timers. They're living in a fantasy world that has no correlation with reality, and their foreign policy desires will do nothing but bring our country to ruin. Plus, our military is stretched too thin to take part in another Middle Eastern adventure. Where is Bush going to get the troops? I have an idea: Bush should recruit all the Christian soldier wannabes who advocate war with Iran and send them in. If they want the war to bring back baby Jesus so bad, then let them do it with their own lives.

Stem Cell Vote Today

The Democrats' bill to provide funding for embryonic stem cell research is up for vote today. It will undoubtedly pass, but President Bush has promised to veto it, saying the measure, "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research," despite the fact that this "human life" is a sphere of 100 undifferentiated cells with no chance of having a consciousness, making it difficult to call it a "human being." At this time, it does not look like the House will have enough votes to override the veto, but time will tell.

Read more about it here.

What I'm Optimistic About

I found an interesting feature over at edge.org where a number of scholars, scientists, etc. were asked what they are optimistic about and why. There’s some neat ideas expressed there, and I recommend you check it out here.

While reading the various entries, I started thinking of what I’m optimistic about. The following is my humble response to the same question:

In the last couple of years, I’ve found myself becoming more and more pessimistic about the direction this nation has taken. We’ve had Iraq, a subtle, continuing loss of civil rights, rising national debt, the growing influence of the Religious Right in the government, polarization of America, and so on. However, I have hope that things have finally gotten bad enough to jolt Americans out of their complacency.

With the voter apathy in this country it has been easy for the well-organized Religious Right (and that voter organization was partially achieved through illegal methods) to push their agenda in the federal and state governments. However, Karl Rove’s vaunted vote-getting machine failed in the 2006 elections. Enough Americans finally decided to do something and took Congress away from the Republicans.

Now, Congress will no longer operate as a rubber stamp for President Bush’s policies. It’s fair to hope he won’t get anything significant done in his last two years. He will actually have to interact and compromise with Congress, and not simply let Republican sycophants do his bidding. Perhaps now Bush will come out of the dream world of magic he’s been living in and face reality.

Furthermore, I’m optimistic that 2004 was the high tide of the Religious Right’s power. Despite their obvious failure this last November, other, more subtle signs have appeared. The legal death of Intelligent Design in September 2005 after the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board ruling meant that creationists had to go back to the drawing board. Now they’re not even offering an alternative. Instead they’re trying to “teach the controversy” that doesn’t exist. It’s only a matter of time until Intelligent Design is just a bad memory. Unfortunately, the Creationist organization Answers in Genesis will open their new Creation Museum outside Cincinnati that supports the young-Earth theory. I'm optimistic it will face nothing but declining visitor numbers until it has to shut down due to lack of funding.

The Religious Right embarrassed itself this past year. Ted Haggard, mega-church pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, turned out to be gay and a drug-user. Another mega-church pastor in Denver admitted to being gay shortly afterwards. Pat Robertson continued to show that he is an intolerant moron with no grasp on reality (he leg-pressed a ton you know. Too bad he didn't even come close to using the right technique).

Finally, people have begun to stand up and do what they can to oppose the Religious Right. Internet groups focused on the subject have grown enormously in just the last year, increasing awareness. The media (except Fox News, of course) and the publishing world have increasingly brought the Religious Right’s unconstitutional and intolerant activities to light. Bush looks increasingly single-minded and foolish, especially when it comes to Iraq and his refusal to accept that he cannot win. American Democracy is beginning to work the way it’s supposed to, because the American people have become concerned and started to participate.

In conclusion, I’m optimistic that America has come back from the brink of becoming a theocracy. Of course, we must remain vigilant and continue to participate. This is a battle that will never go away. However, the future is what we make it, and I think we can make this country the nation we dream of if we simply continue to resist the forces of intolerance and ignorance and do what we can to make this world a better place.

On a related note, PZ Meyers at Pharyngula shared his New Year's Dream with us, and I can say I agree exactly.

Kieth Olbermann: Making it Up

Even though he might sound a bit extreme in his views, Kieth Olbermann of MSNBC makes some excellent arguments concerning how President Bush has basically trashed the Constitution to do what he wants and how we have allowed him to do it. It's good stuff. As I said before, hopefully the change we voted for in Congress will have an effect.

Warning Signs from the Military Commissions Act

Now that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is law, we need to really take a step back and see the dangerous path it leads us towards. It’s important to look and see what the MCA allows the President to do.

The most frightening provision is the suspension of habeas corpus for aliens and non-Americans. It doesn’t sound too bad, right? It should mean that the MCA won’t affect American citizens, right? However, if an American is arrested under this act, then their inability to invoke habeas corpus means that they cannot prove their citizenship because no one has to listen. They can simply disappear at the President’s whim. No man should have that kind of power in a democracy.

Furthermore, the MCA allows the President to hold “enemy combatants” for an indefinite period of time and choose when to use or ignore the Geneva Conventions. To me, this seems like a disturbing first step in what could be an unending string of restrictions on civil liberties.

How could this happen? For that answer, just look at our current do-nothing Congress. The Democrats have been shut out and the Republicans stick to the party line regardless of how their constituents feel about any given issue. Congress needs to wake up and realize that it does not have to cater to the President’s wishes, but that it is supposed to limit the President’s power. If the Republican Congress continues to fail at their constitutionally-directed obligation to limit the executive, then we might as well crown Bush as emperor because Congress has allowed him to do whatever he wants: invade Iraq, spend without limit, destroy individual liberties, etc. Please, go out and vote next week and let’s replace this Congress and stop the country’s slide towards authoritarianism.

For more information, read this thought-provoking article by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

Abstinence-only Education, or Another Way to Impose Religious Ideology

This is a good one. The Christian right feels the only type of sex education program that should be taught in public schools is one that advocates abstinence-only. The major push for this form of sex education comes from the Bush Administration, which has worked to triple the funding for abstinence-only programs. By itself, that doesn’t sound too bad, teaching people to wait until sex for marriage. However, these abstinence only curriculums refuse to educate their students about the various forms of contraceptives that are available and distort the facts to make their case through scare tactics.

Obviously, this push for abstinence-only has come from the Christian right-dominated Republican Party, so it’s useful to look at the conservative Christian thought towards sex education, which is that if you teach teens about ways to have sex without penalty then they will have sex all the time out of wedlock and destroy their morality along with the moral fiber of the country. The question I have to ask is: can you really stop human nature? A large number of teens are going to have sex whether you tell them to abstain or not. Worse, if they do not know about ways to minimize the risk to themselves, then they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors leading to teen pregnancy and STDs. Then if teen pregnancy rates increase, you have a higher demand for abortion since most teens cannot afford to care for a child. Of course, the Christian right is completely against abortion, so their desired policy of not teaching contraception methods actually works completely against one of their major goals: the abolition of abortion. Now, take the Netherlands, for example. They have one of the most open and complete sex education programs in the world. As a result, they also have the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the world since their teens know about the consequences of sex and ways to prevent them. Also, this gives the Dutch one of the lowest abortion rates in the world since they have much fewer unwanted pregnancies, which would seem to be one of the ultimate goals of abstinance-only sex education. Too bad the Christian right allows dogma to get in the way of the facts and logic.

Another problem with these abstinence only programs is that when they do mention contraceptives, they portray them as the cause of higher STD rates throughout the country. That might be fine if it were true. However, a Congressional study by Representative Waxman of California found that 80% of the abstinence only programs contain gross scientific errors that greatly inflate contraceptive failure rates and downplay their effectiveness against pregnancy and the STD’s (for the full Congressional report, click here). In reality, the scientific data shows that many contraceptives are effective at preventing the most common STDs. The only reason that STD rates seem to have gone up (and this is with just few diseases, most have actually declined) is that people are more willing to report them and seek treatment. The fact that the creators of these abstinence-only curriculums feel the need to lie certainly tells me that they’re pushing a different motive than child welfare. Otherwise, they would show the facts allowing teens to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, some of these programs teach gender stereotypes, especially downplaying the role women have in society. They teach that the man should be the provider of the family and that women need the protection of the man (again, see the congressional report). First off, I don’t really see why that should be in a sex education class. Second, if that isn’t a return to a Medieval mentality, I don’t know what is. Pretty retroactive if you ask me.

If these programs are inaccurate and don’t work as well as a complete and open sex education program, then why do it? Well, you get back to the Christian right’s idea of morality. I have no problem with them believing in a Biblically inspired idea of morality, except when the Christian right tries to force it on the rest of us. Just look at any of their websites (for example, the vision statement for the Christian Coalition and the about page of the Traditional Values Coalition). They want to make traditional Christian values the law in this country. Unfortunately for them, that is severely unconstitutional. I’ll go more into that on another post, but that fact is that the attempt to teach abstinence-only is simply a manifestation of the Christian right’s desire to emplace a religiously-inspired morality on the nation. Therefore, if we really want to preserve the separation of church and state, then this is just one of the intrusions on our civil liberties that we need to stop.

The Coming Age of Religious War

It may seem like all-out religious warfare is thing of the past one can only find in history books of the Middle Ages. Certainly, we wouldn’t fight for the same irrational causes that needlessly cost so many lives, right? Well, I don’t need to tell you about how the Muslim world has embraced fundamentalism. To say that only a small percentage of Muslims believes in the strict fundamentalism proscribed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Just look at the support Iranian President Ahmadinejad has for his hard line, faith-based policies. Look at the growing fundamentalist universities throughout Pakistan. Look at the unending religious divisions that unendingly frustrate our efforts in Iraq. Look at the seething unrest that erupts in the Middle East when even the slightest affront to Islam appears in the West. I think we need to stop fooling ourselves and realize that the Islamic world has embraced the idea of militant fundamentalism, especially amongst the youth, meaning the problem will not go away any time soon.

What’s worse is that this rise of fundamentalism is not unique to the Middle East. All you need to do is look at America itself. Christian Fundamentalism is on the rise throughout this country and wants nothing more than to impose its “values” on the rest of the nation. The enormous growth of massive churches preaching strict interpretation of the Bible has risen to the point where they have become political forces all their own while the more moderate and reasonable churches have gone on the decline. These fundamentalist megachurches such as Focus on the Family have become some of the most powerful and vociferous constituencies and lobbyists of the Republican Party. They funnel millions of dollars towards Republican political campaigns, thereby forcing the Republicans to bend to their will. What’s worse is that a growing majority of Republicans come from the far Christian right as well. All told, they hope to enforce their strict moral code on the rest of the nation. You just need to read the news to see their campaigns: anti-gay rights, absolute abolition of abortion (even for rape victims), intelligent design, the banning of sex education in schools, and the list could go on.

Now what does this have to do with religious war you ask? Well, those policies extend to foreign policy as well. Just look at how our born-again President views the War on Terror. He sees it as a battle of good vs. evil. Even in Iraq where the mistakes are apparent, President Bush wrote, “My faith frees me,” revealing his certainty that his faith cannot allow him to make the wrong choice. If that doesn’t terrify you, then maybe you shouldn’t be reading this. Hopefully, America will return to rationality sometime soon and start electing leaders who are more interested with actual right and wrong rather than Christian right and wrong. Otherwise, we could hopelessly escalate the current conflict creating a massive clash of civilizations and religions between unyielding fundamentalists convinced of their divine righteousness.

For a good opinion piece on this subject from a more spiritual point of view, read Andrew Sullivan’s article from Time Magazine.

And for the typical dogmatic response, check out this blog entry.